Evolution of what?

[TagliatelliMonster]

That when I looked up some stuff about mutations I found that (the scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. And I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

You think you are "close to finish" it, yet after all this time still aren't able to accurately describe in even the simplest terms how the process works and still make silly rookie mistakes like "tigers remain tigers" and what-not.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I figure there must be some things you believe and which scientists believe which are not in question. By you or them. That doesn't mean, however, that they're right or true. Furthermore, I am not contesting everything that scientists say, that's for sure. But thanks for your question. Scientists themselves have serious doubts about what has been accepted and taught by others. Some scientists, anyway.

Especially those that don't do research, don't publish papers in appropriate journals, got their PhD's online for money and / or only publish on propaganda sites where they have to sign a "statement of faith" first where they promise to operate exclusively from an assumed conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do.

That's hilarious.

So far that I know of banana trees remain banana trees and apple trees remain apple trees.

How many times has this mistake of yours been pointed out?
And yet you claim to be "close to finishing your examination" of evolution?

You haven't even remembered lesson 1. I have personally corrected this mistake of yours a bazillion times over the past year.
Yet here we are..... quadruppling down on this willful ignorance.

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked up some stuff about mutations. (The scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. Thanks. I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

This really doesn't say anything. Out and undefinable about what regarding mutations?

So you examined the entire field, weighed all the evidence and arguments of the last 200 years, and you are close to giving your fully unbiased, completely knowledgeable judgment on the central theory of biology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This really doesn't say anything. Out and undefinable about what regarding mutations?

So you examined the entire field, weighed all the evidence and arguments of the last 200 years, and you are close to giving your fully unbiased, completely knowledgeable judgment on the central theory of biology?

And that, while still repeating the same mistake that's been correct countless times over the past year saying "...but apple trees remain apple trees"

 

[Valjean]

That when I looked up some stuff about mutations I found that (the scientific) jury is not only out but actually undefinable regarding the accuracy of the theory at large. And I'm getting close to finish my examination of what scientists believe then and now about evolution, the theory of.

Sorry YT, I'm still not clear.
''...some stuff on mutations?" What stuff? What problems or disputes did you discover? How did this/these relate to the ToE?

I'm not aware of anyone disputing the fact of mutation, or mutation's rôle as one of the mechanisms of evolution. Details will be disputed, of course, as new discoveries are made all the time.

Q: How are you going about your examination of the scientific knowledge of evolution?
If you need any suggestions or clarifications, please feel free to ask.

 

[Valjean]

I figure there must be some things you believe and which scientists believe which are not in question. By you or them. That doesn't mean, however, that they're right or true.

But it does mean they are extensively researched, evidenced, and tested; that they account well for the phenomena they apply to, and that there are no other viable alternative theories. It means belief is the only reasonable position.

Furthermore, I am not contesting everything that scientists say, that's for sure. But thanks for your question. Scientists themselves have serious doubts about what has been accepted and taught by others. Some scientists, anyway.

It's skepticism that drives the whole process of science, of course, but scientists don't have serious doubts about the fact or major mechanisms of evolution.

The doubt exists about new findings and research, and the disagreement involves new interpretations of this data. As new data continues to amass, and be criticized and tested, consensus is eventually achieved and the science adjusted to reflect our expanded understanding.

 

[Valjean]

I do.

So far that I know of banana trees remain banana trees and apple trees remain apple trees.

But if you mapped the genialogies of bananas or apples, generation after generation, back for millions of years, you would never find a banana plant in an apple tree's ancestry, or vice versa.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I figure there must be some things you believe and which scientists believe which are not in question. By you or them. That doesn't mean, however, that they're right or true. Furthermore, I am not contesting everything that scientists say, that's for sure. But thanks for your question. Scientists themselves have serious doubts about what has been accepted and taught by others. Some scientists, anyway.

Here's one: Evolution is a fact of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

This really doesn't say anything. Out and undefinable about what regarding mutations?

So you examined the entire field, weighed all the evidence and arguments of the last 200 years, and you are close to giving your fully unbiased, completely knowledgeable judgment on the central theory of biology?

Thank you, Dan. I thank you and others because after having looked up the various comments by reputable sources about mutations and evolution I am convinced it is a generalized and not specifically accurate way of looking at the theory. I'm sure you can read it also, so if you're convinced about the specificity and accuracy of the theory re mutations other than a broad judgment, please do say so, why, and how. Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

How are you relating mutation and evolution, YT?

 

[MJ Bailey]

It would be very interesting to see Carbon's DNA strand.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sum what times?



I don't think I understand your question or what it has to do with what I said.

Again, water came first, then life came after. What is confusing about that to you?

The Bible's description discusses the preparation of water and earth before other things. For instance (Genesis 1) - "And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
So the earth and water was made suitable for vegetation.

 

[Left Coast]

The Bible's description discusses the preparation of water and earth before other things. For instance (Genesis 1) - "And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."
So the earth and water was made suitable for vegetation.

Cool. What did that have to do with what I asked?

 

[YoursTrue]

Cool. What did that have to do with what I asked?

It is cool, isn't it, that water came first as you said, and the Bible substantiates that. That's all. First water, then plants according to the biblical account. (cool) Just a comment. Carry on...

 

[Bthoth]

It is cool, isn't it, that water came first as you said, and the Bible substantiates that. That's all. First water, then plants according to the biblical account. (cool) Just a comment. Carry on...

The solar wind of the sun, carries H and O well before biblical accounts even existed. Therefore water has been all over the universe before the god of genesis ever existed.

 

[Left Coast]

It is cool, isn't it, that water came first as you said, and the Bible substantiates that. That's all. First water, then plants according to the biblical account. (cool) Just a comment. Carry on...

So it sounds like you're in agreement with me that there's nothing weird or confusing about water preceding life, despite @Eli G's objections.

I'm glad we can agree on something!

 

[Heyo]

Thank you, Dan. I thank you and others because after having looked up the various comments by reputable sources about mutations and evolution

Can you please post a link to those sources so that we know what we are talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me guess. Um...there are two arms and two legs. Let's see...it takes a male and female to cause a female to give birth. Let's see -- a monkey face can be said to resemble a human face -- um...we all have to go to the bathroom -- and eat -- and drink -- anything else? Oh, ok, some chimps or others can take a stick and use it -- oh no wait a minute, babies can do that sometimes -- ? Oh, and the various entities, like gorillas and chimps, etc., have teeth and two eyes and two ears.

Wow! I am sorry, but that is amazing ignorance. We can start with the teeth. Experts can easily tell a lot about animals by their teeth alone and we have the exact number and arrangement of teeth that other apes have. We have the same eyesight with the ability to see red, that is lacking in many other mammals. We have unique shoulders that are not shared with other mammals. If you want to see more you should check out this article:

Humans are primates

Humans are members of a particular sub-group of mammals known as the primates (Order Primates).

australian.museum

What you will find is that any biological trait that humans have is also shared by all of the apes and most of the primates.

I'd love to say however it happened but I can't, you know why? Because no one really knows...of the human race.

You may not really know, but the evidence is clear when it comes to our line of descent. Do we know exactly how it happened? No. Do we know that it happened, without a question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you, Dan.

You're welcome.

I thank you and others because after having looked up the various comments by reputable sources

what sources?

about mutations

what about them?

and evolution

What about mutations in relation to evolution?

I am convinced it is a generalized and not specifically accurate way of looking at the theory.

I have no idea what that means and no way to know.

I'm sure you can read it also,

No. I can't. You didn't provide anything for me or anyone else to read.

so if you're convinced about the specificity and accuracy of the theory re mutations other than a broad judgment, please do say so, why, and how. Thanks.

I can't say anything about what you claim to have read or concluded from it.